Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [treequake] virtual/mysql addition

2006-11-27 Thread Ryan Tandy

Robin H. Johnson wrote:

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:50:43AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:

Two things I'm always wondering about when this topic comes up:
- is there really a need for USE=client? In most cases people request
to exclude the server part, can't remember ever seeing a request to
exclude the client.

I can't find the bug right now, but this did pop up where the client was
a GUI app, and they wanted to get away from needing all the dependencies
it pulled in that way.

Would controlling building of the client via a flag such as 'X' or 'gtk' 
be inappropriate in that scenario?

-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

2006-11-05 Thread Ryan Tandy

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
| On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
|  If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
|  vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
|  Gentoo dev list to see.
| I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next

| possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages.

Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?

Pink, obviously, to match the ponies.
-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: treecleaner removals

2006-09-27 Thread Ryan Tandy

Duncan wrote:

Just to let you guys know, us users thank you too.  It's not a glamorous
job, but there was a lot of cruft built up and it needed done, and some of
us (yes, even users) appreciate it.

-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

2006-08-08 Thread Ryan Tandy

Brian Harring wrote:
Question your method of bootstraping then- note that for gcc it's 
nocxx, not cxx.

Meaning, USE=nocxx _disables_ building cxx; this is why default IUSE 
is requested, to kill off the 'no' (and it's seperate from my point)- 
c++ related failures there would be due to either 

Sorry, lack of thinking on my part.  Was actually USE=-* minimal nocxx 
pam, which is significantly different and therefore not related to the 
use.force discussion.  Sorry for wasting your bandwidth.

-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

2006-08-07 Thread Ryan Tandy

Peter Gordon wrote:

Zac Medico wrote:

The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.

If they were so extremely important then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing something?

Hmm...  I set out to build a system recently (since 2006.0) with 
USE=-*, just to see if I could.  After borking python a couple of 
times (you know how it is ;)), I was prevented from completing system by 
a couple of ebuilds failing on not having c++ available.  One was bison, 
which failed on one of its examples rather than on the program itself. 
I can't remember what the other package was, but it was a C-only package 
(yacc maybe? or did it begin with a 'g'?) that failed in configure - I 
remember wondering where the Removing useless C++ checks message was 
when I needed it.  Around about then I stopped having spare time, so I 
never filed bugs or investigated further.

My point, now that I've bored you all with a long story, is that if 
you're careful about it, no USE flag is *truly* required, at least for a 
working system.  Sure, some are highly recommended - but isn't that what 
defaults are for? :)

-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] SpanKY's Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2007

2006-07-06 Thread Ryan Tandy

Mike Doty wrote:

Vote Taco!

If elected, I promise to add 2 minutes to nap time every Friday and 
double juice boxes every third Wednesday of the month.


I want to be a dev if there's juice boxes involved!

*runs off to take the ebuild quiz*
-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] SpanKY's Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2007

2006-07-04 Thread Ryan Tandy

George Prowse wrote:

pauldv jr

seconded :D
-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV

2006-06-19 Thread Ryan Tandy

Arek (James Potts) wrote:
If they don't actually build against the kernel, 
couldn't/shouldn't they look at either kernel-headers or the output of 
`uname -r`?

Kernel headers being the virtual/linux-headers dependency that Georgi 
mentioned.  `uname -r` works, but is annoying because you can't build 
for a kernel other than the one you're running.

-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] embedded overlay on

2006-06-18 Thread Ryan Tandy

Stefan Schweizer wrote:

solar has requested an account on for the embedded
overlay for you.
Your password: DX7wnSe40Y

Kind regards,

-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Ryan Tandy

Peter wrote:

Nonetheless, the bug is active, with a good number of people subscribing
to it and contributing to it. The sunshine overlay would be an ideal place
to store a kernel source tree or any project which would never find a home
in portage.

Pardon me if I'm totally confused, but isn't this what BMG is for?
-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 'Images' without gcc/portage?

2006-04-14 Thread Ryan Tandy

Allen Rohner wrote:
I have been a Gentoo user for several years, but this is my first step 
into gentoo development. I'm looking at the feasability of using 
gentoo for a product at work. Is it possible to use a Gentoo host 
machine to create a linux 'image' (ramdisk/ext2fs/iso) that does not 
contain portage or gcc? I have looked at several embedded gentoo web 
pages, and am familiar with the ROOT=/opt/image emerge busybox 
dropbear type command line, but all of the examples I've seen create 
a portage tree on the image. Additionally, getting past 
is painful.

I am looking to use Gentoo to create a standard x86 environment 
complete with apache and X, but with no gcc or portage on the target 
machine. Additionally, use the same technique to cross-compile to a 
ppc embedded system.

Is this possible? Is it a good idea?

Allen Rohner
dev-util/catalyst is the tool used to build Gentoo's official LiveCDs.  
Despite being ~arch, =catalyst-2 works fairly well as far as I know.

-- mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Putting qa warnings to a text file instead of showing them to the world

2005-12-27 Thread Ryan Tandy


However, by bitching about problems, there are some users that decide to
check WTF is this warning, in turn they urge devs to fix it (and that is the 
main point of QA,
right?), they report it with their bug reports and so on. In other words, the 
problem gets _NOTICED_
by everybody.

IMHO, leave it as it is now and don't bother. It is not that much of an output, 
compared to the
compile output anyway.
I'd prefer even having it red/bold/whatever for easy spotting. 

I agree - hiding QA stuff just makes it be there longer.  The more 
people notice it, the more likely it is to get fixed, which is the best 
way of making it not show up (IMHO anyway).

And for the future, what about
defining something like GENTOO_LEVEL=n00b|user|know_how|master|admin|dev|guru 
in make.conf? And
act acording to this, but trying to move the user up a level or two most of the 

I don't think many people would enjoy having a system that made it its 
business to tell them what they should know about.  Different people 
have different learning rates and learn in different ways about 
different things.  People who want to learn to solve their own problems 
will; those who don't aren't likely to want their computer to try to 
force them to (although I'll admit that Gentoo doesn't exactly attract 
loads of the latter type).

-- mailing list